II. STATE LAWS FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS. 



The following digest of measures for the protection of birds, which 

 includes the latest acts passed in the various States up to the close of 

 1899, and also laws enacted by New York and Rhode Island in 1900,^ 

 fairly represents the legislation in force in the United States at the 

 close of the centurj^. In the fifty j^ears that have elapsed since the 

 enactment of the first law protecting insectivorous birds, considerable 

 progress has been made, although much still remains to be accom- 

 plished. With the exception of Alaska (see p. 57), every State and 

 Territory has its bird law, but Arizona, Idaho, Indian Territory, and 

 New Mexico protect only game, and Florida only game and plume birds. 



Uncertainties still surround many of the questions involved in these 

 laws; but some fundamental principles have been definitelj^ settled by 

 decisions of the higher courts, the tendencj^ of which is to give the 

 fullest effect to such legislation. While these decisions relate prima- 

 rily to game, the principles established appW equally to birds of all 

 kinds. Several of the State courts have held that the title to game is 

 vested in the State, and Colorado, Michigan, and Texas incorporate 

 this principle in their laws, declaring in no uncertain terms that game 

 is the property of the State. The supreme court of California has 

 said, ' ' The wild game within a State belongs to the people in their 

 collective sovereign capacity. It is not the subject of private owner- 

 ship except in so far as the people may elect to make it so, and they 

 may, if they see fit, absolutel}^ prohibit the taking of it, or trafiic and 

 commerce in it, if it is deemed necessary for the protection or preser- 

 vation of the public good.'"^ It is generally admitted that the State 

 has the right to legislate regarding the protection of its birds and 

 game; and the court of appeals of New York some years ago held that 

 all game, whether killed within the State or imported from without, 

 is subject to the State law, provided the wording of the statute covers 

 it,'' a principle which has recently been incorporated in the Minnesota 

 game law.* In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States^ affirmed 



^ I am indebted to Mr. William Dutcher, of New York City, for copies of the New 

 York and other recent laws, and to Mrs. Eleanor W. T. Smith, of Providence, for 

 the Rhode Island law. 



^ Ex parte Maier, 103 Cal. , 476. The same view was expressed by the supreme 

 court of Minnesota in State v. Rodman, 58 Minn., 393. 



^ Phelps V. Racey, 60 N. Y., 10. 



* Laws of 1897, chap. 221, sec. 32. 



* Geer v. State of Connecticut, 161 U. S., 519. 



55 



